Tw Mw Enk v. Brophy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he next friend must be an appropriate alter ego for a plaintiff who is not able to litigate in his own right ... ordinarily the eligible will be confined to the plaintiff's parents, older siblings (if there are no parents), or a conservator or other guardian, akin to a trustee; that persons having only an ideological stake in the child's case are never eligible; but that if a close relative is unavailable and the child has no conflict-free general representative the court may appoint a personal friend of the plaintiff or his family, a professional who has worked with the child, or, in desperate circumstances, a stranger whom the court finds to be especially suitable to represent the child's interests in the litigation.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carson P. ex rel Foreman v. Heineman · Padilla Ex Rel. Newman v. Bush

2. “The question who shall represent the children because of their incapacity to sue on their own is not a separate issue of standing. Even allowing a complete stranger to bring suit in their name as their next friend because they cannot sue on their own behalf would not violate Article III. But it might well offend the policy behind the requirement of standing, which is to confine the right to initiate and control federal court litigation to persons who have a concrete stake, rather than merely an ideological interest — passionate and motivating as such interests can be — in the litigation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 610 F. Supp. 2d 171 - Sam M. Ex Rel. Elliott v. Carcieri

3. “As a general rule, a federal court cannot appoint a guardian ad litem in an action in which the infant or incompetent already is represented by someone who is considered appropriate under the law of the forum state. It is a sensible general rule because the management of the affairs of infants, like other matters relating to domestic relations, is the primary responsibility of the states rather than of the federal government.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 610 F. Supp. 2d 171 - Sam M. Ex Rel. Elliott v. Carcieri